P. N. Khanna, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent is a tenant under the appellant-landlady in the respect of a shop and a kitchen in abuilding situated on Old Rohtak Road, Delhi. An application for his eviction was filed under clause (a) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the -Delhi Rent Control Act, on the ground that he had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1962 inspite of service of-notice of demand. The respondent-tenant disputed the rate of rent payable and stated that previously the appellant-landlady had demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 20. 00per month. He, however, asserted that the standard of rent the premises would be Rs. 7. 00per month. He therefore, asked for the fixation of standard rent, at that rate. The Additional Controller fixed Rs. 25. . 00per month as the interim rent under section 15 (3) of. the Act and directed the respondent to pay the arrears of rent with effect from October I, 1962 within a month and also future rent at the same rate, by the 15th of each subsequent month. The Rent Control Tribunal took into consideration the notice dated July 19, 1962, served on the respondent by the appellant landlady demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 20. 00per month and also the accommodation and the situation of the premises. It fixed the rent at Bs. 20. 00rer month without prejudice to the pleadings of the parties. The landlady has, under these circunasta"icss, onac up to this CJurt in second appeal. ( 2 ). Th3 larnsd counsel For the appllint refferred to a receipt datj Ooberi, 1962, for s. 35. 25 as ret f)r th Uh of Septe- mber, 152 duly signed at tha ti marked by the repoadent. Tn Additional Co nr)ller in his order renred tiait the respondent-tena- nt had alitted his signatures and thumb-impression on the sail reipt. The notica said to hive been sent on behalf of the appellant deaaandingr3tattherateofrs. 20. 00per mnth is dated July 19, 1952. According to ts learned cojsl,tn3siil notice REFERRED TO another shop ai i ro3ii ia the same bdlldiag, which in settlement of some diooute as said to have been exchanged with the premises in qson The respondent tenant paid the first rent of the premises insuitwiti effect fron September 1, 1962 and tae receipt dated October 1, 1)>l wis th" first receipt. The agreed rate of rent of the premises in soil, trafore, a it wxs contended, Rs. 35. 25 per month with effect from September 1, 1962, wch was tha rate at which the rant was last paid. the interim rent could not be fixed at any lesser rate orgd the appellant s learned counsel. ( 3 ). Under section 15 (1), the Controller has to make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or dep3sit wh th Cootrollerati amount calculated at the rate o rent at which it was last paid, only after giving the parties anopportunity of being heard. This appears to contemplate a sort of a trial if ther H a dispute about the rent. The Controller has to gve a decision afcer hearing the parties. Thre is no question of fixing interim rent in such an event. If, however, there is a dispute about the contractual rent payable, ths Ccntr3u-r uni r section 15 (a) has to fix within fifteen days of ths date of first hearing, interim rent in accordance with the provision of sub-section (1) until the standard rent in relation thereto is fixed having regard to the p )visions of th Act. In Vf. . Chawlav J. S. Sthi the Stinrems Court observed (para 1); "ustion (3) pr)vmevut*iinterimrent istobepaidto at the rate at which "it was lt Olii till standard rent is determined, but tliere by it is not impusi thit stanlird rent is to be determined as an issue arising in th action for ejectment; the clause only mans that when there is a dispute relating 13 thorite of contractual rent payable the Controller shlli vithin fifteen days of the date of the first hearing of the proceed- ing fi th3 interim rent, and the amount so fixed shall be paid by the Uunt until standard rent in relation to the premises is fixed in an -oororinte osjing unir the Act. The expression having reg ard to thp o/isions of this Act * has in our judgment reference to sections 8 ani 12. The Controller, therefore, has to determine the rat at whi the rent was last paid, whether he acts under sub sec- tion (1) or sub-section (3) of section 15. In the latter case the rent so fixed is the interim rent. ( 4 ). The Controller, therefore, has to determine the rat at whi the rent was last paid, whether he acts under sub sec- tion (1) or sub-section (3) of section 15. In the latter case the rent so fixed is the interim rent. ( 4 ). In the order under appeal, the Tribunal does not appear to have considered the question whether an apphcation for fixing the standard rent can ba made, in view of section 12 of the Act. He hasfixir20. 00per month as the interim rent not inaccordance with the provisions of sub-section (\) of section 15, i. e. the rate at which the rent was last paid; but by taking into consideration the accommodation and the situation of the premises. The order of the Rent Control Tribunal, as also that of the Additional Controller, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside The case is reminded to the Additional Controller for deciding what was the rate at which the rent was last paid and fixing that rate of rent as the interim rent, if section 2 do s not act as a bar to the fixation of standard rent. If, however, the standard rent cannot be fixed by virtue of section 12 of the Act, then the rate of rent last paid will be ordered to be paid under section 15 (1) of the Act, In view of the above, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 5 ). The parties are directed to appear before the Additional Controller on February 15, 7971.